I can’t believe this thread has been going on for a year! ARE YOU NUTS!?
Stop talking about Iran. Go do something about “Iran”.
Ya, gear up already! Shesssssh.
And what course of action would you suggest?
I am doing something. I’m overseeing construction of a new shopping mall there. Is that enough?
3 Likes
If they quit, the only guarantee is that the sanctions will ‘snap-back’ whether or not that’s possible or relevant in 15 years remains to be seen.
Show me where in the agreement, that an air campaign would be conducted by U.S. forces. There is no such language in the agreement. Furthermore, you argued that an air campaign would not be an effective tool in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, so what would be the point when they are much further along?
Iran has the option to back out of the agreement now and will only face a sanctions ‘snap-back’. That is the only stated consequence. If, in the future, they don’t care about those sanctions, or we get to a point where the sanctions are not relevant or enforceable, they can back out with even fewer consequences.
The ‘specter’ of an air campaign hasn’t scared Iran in the past. A richer, more financially stable and independent Iran will care even less. Iran is not scared of the U.S., not even a little. Otherwise they would not be holding hostages, testing ballistic missiles, taunting our ships and taking our military personal captive for dipping their toes in Iranian waters. You know why they toy with us? Because they can and they know it. They watched us back down from an embattled dictator in Assad, they know they can fuck with us and we will blink.
The only thing keeping Iran from having a nuke is Iran. They don’t want to be isolated anymore. Should they change their mind, anything can happen.
JCPOA is a joke and the joke is on us.
What backtracking? I never stated getting $1.7B was their entire goal. But they have made it clear that money is important to them. What the fuck are you talking about?
And I wasn’t making an ‘argument’ I was making a specific point to someone else. I realize you cannot tell the difference.
Are you denying you wrote this Pat? Are you denying that Iran’s nuclear program cost it $260 billion in both investment ($100 billion) and lost economic activity ($160 billion? Are you denying that $1.7 billion < $260 billion?
The clerical regime was brought to the bargaining table by crippling sanctions that hamstrung the Iranian economy and threatened to result in popular political unrest. It was also brought to the table by the specter of American military force.
Do you honestly believe that the lack of a codified, explicit threat of force in the wake of a violation of the JCPOA means that option is off the table? Do you honestly believe such things could/should appear in an arms control agreement? Your entire line of reasoning is astoundingly ridiculous.
I have stated ad nauseum that coercive diplomacy is preferable to containment of a nuclear Iran, which is preferable to war. I have also made it clear on multiple occasions that the efficacy and international legitimacy of preventative military action against Iran’s nuclear program is significantly greater in the context of a deal (as opposed to before, when 1)western security agencies had a relatively limited understanding of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and supply chain and target sets were dispersed and were in some cases in fortified facilities; 2) diplomatic options had not been exhausted).
Do you deny the above? If so, explain why the efficacy and international legitimacy of military force against Iran’s nuclear program is not increased by the JCPOA.
Much farther along? If you actually could be bothered to read the agreement and its supporting literature (which should end your inexcusable confusion regarding the NPT and the IAEA), it’s clear that in technical terms, Iran is farther from the bomb after implementation of the JCPOA than before. Breakout time has been increased by 400 percent, and the probability of early detection of such a sprint to the bomb would easily be detected early on given the intrusive and comprehensive nature of the inspections regime.
Says a guy who claims Obama’s red line threat was a great victory for Obama’s administration while leaving 1500 civilians dead from Syrian Government sponsored chemical attacks a year in it’s wake.
Sounds like a clear victory to me.
Funny, this from a guy who once said our air craft carriers would be easily taken out by Iranian supersonic missiles.
You’re really very confused, and I have already tried to help you through this on multiple occasions. More importantly, do you remember when I caught you openly and stupidly lying like three days ago…
…and explained to you in your own words exactly how and why you were lying…
…and – after you tried to fucking wormishly slither away without addressing your lie – informed you that your particular bundle of spectacular ignorance and intellectual dishonesty had become too parodic for me to continue teaching you things about the world and then holding your hand through the subsequent intense and unpleasant bouts of confusion?
Edit: Incidentally, the funniest thing about what you are ineffectually trying above is that it has nothing remotely to do with the thread topic. You vomited it into the debate without any kind of reason or point. You then lost a series of short exchanges during which you tried every little fetid thing that managed to crawl up your intestinal tract and into the fucking echoing cavern that is your skull…including the absolute goddamn treasure wherein you tried and miserably failed to counter some or another factual point with BUT WHAT IF IRAN DIRTY-BOMBS DC, which of course is an utter non sequitur and, more amusingly, a half-century-old Iranian technical capability that has never come to fruition and that nobody whatsoever believes might happen.
Then you started lying.
So: fuck you for wasting my time, and goodbye.
Care to cite where I wrote that? Let’s ignore your numerous and egregious gaffes whenever you discuss anything related to strategic studies of military science. I do recall responding to your histrionic reaction to an article covering Iran’s Noor anti-ship missile. You’re being blatantly dishonest here.
You would support Assad because he is opposed to ISIL (though he played a significant and deliberate role in the rise of the terrorist quasi-state) yet you are asserting that the U.S. should have used force against Assad in the wake of the initial weapons grade chemical attacks (to the discerning observer, it did) and should again in response to crude chlorine attacks? Support Assad or bomb him, which is it?
Do you disagree with the above? If so, let’s see you take a stab at it.
I for one think that the removal of 2 million pounds of sarin, mustard agent and VX nerve agent from a jihadist bee hive was a bad idea and a clear blow to international security.
Yeah I wrote it, so what?
I also wrote this part in the same post:
“So once they have their $1.7 billion from us, what’s their motivation to stay? Particularly if they already have arrangements in place? Do you think after countries have negotiated multimillion/ multibillion dollar deals with Iran, that they would cut those deals for us? I doubt it. And those deals may be ‘sanction proof’ anyway. Plus they have Russian and Chinese support.”
So once again, you are taking things out of context to attack me personally. Take a cold shower, maybe you will be able to wrestle your hard-on down if you do that…
Show me where in the JCPOA it says we will launch air strikes if Iran does not comply? Show me any official document that says we will launch air strikes on Iran if they do not comply? Got any? Didn’t think so.
It’s pure conjecture on your part, nothing more.
Was it? Why then has both ISIS and the Assad regime continued to use chemical weapons on the people’s of Syria… If it was so effective, why would they still gas their own people with Chlorine?
ISIS used mustard gas, so apparently they did not get it all. Great job getting all the chemical weapons out of Syria.
It’s wonderful some chemical weapons were removed, but it didn’t stop the regime from using chemicals on it’s people. This is documented fact. If it were effective, then Assad would not have used chlorine gas. Changing chemicals does not make it any better. If Assad were ‘afraid’ he would not still be gassing his people.
This was not what the ‘Red Line’ was supposed to be and everybody in the world but you knows it… I could post a hundred articles stating that fact…
1 Like
No moron. The point you missed was if given the choice between war with Iran or not having anything to do with them, I would choose the latter. If it were possible to not have anything to do with a rogue state who hates our guts, I would choose that. Unfortunately that is not possible, but that is my preference. That was the question.
The deal may be able to provide more intelligence on their program, but it was a lousy trade off. Good espionage would yield similar results.
And that is provided, Iran is honest and showing inspectors everything, which is something I doubt very much they will do. It’s a big place, there’s a lot of places to hide nukes, if I ran should chose to proceed with a program.
It really cannot be stressed enough that one of the people in this argument said that Iran would be legally free to pursue nuclear weapons capability by virtue of JCPOA obligations expiring.
That is, literally didn’t know about the NPT…
…while talking about a document that explicitly supervenes on and subverts itself to the NPT…
…in the middle of a thread about nuclear politics.
Which is like loudly arguing about how the Packers look this season without ever having fucking heard of the NFL.